Logo

051040040 IGO Work Track Team Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
30:55
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Mary Wong
34:56
Yes, Recommendation #2 is the one that addresses 6ter and standing
Jeffrey Neuman
36:41
hello all, I am on my mobile phone for the next few minutes listening.
Terri Agnew
37:11
@Jeff, noted
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
38:07
ok, thank you
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
38:37
(resending to all panelists and attendees) I'm not sure jurisdiction enters into this standing question here.
Mary Wong
39:09
Apologies, Carlos - I was thinking of standing to file a UDRP complaint initially and didn’t realize you were asking about jurisdiction if a losing registrant were to file court proceedings instead.
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
40:09
@mary Apologies, Carlos - I was thinking of standing to file a UDRP complaint initially and didn’t realize you were asking about jurisdiction if a losing registrant were to file court proceedings instead. >>>I’m looking for the ration to rec #2
Mary Wong
41:25
@Carlos, Rec #2 was the original PDP Working Group’s attempt at flexibility for IGOs who wish to file a UDRP/URS complaint but do not have trademarks, while understanding that Article 6ter does not create substantive rights in and of itself.
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
44:10
@Mary, Txs. Noted the explanation on Rec #2 >>> the place (if not the jurisdiction..) of the registrant. I think that solves my question. Gracias
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
46:55
Agree with Susan. Lets see if we can find solution that works for everyone and then see if need to ask GNSO Council (and GAC) to "tweak" previous advice
Jeffrey Neuman
53:57
Reposting so this is in the Main chat:
Jeffrey Neuman
53:59
Jennifer King <jennifer@dysgraphia.life>
Jeffrey Neuman
54:11
sorry, did not mean that one :)
Mary Wong
54:35
@Jeff, yes - it’s important to remember that IGOs have two challenges with using the UDRP & URS: standing (which currently means a trademark right) and jurisdictional immunity (which is impacted by the Mutual Jurisdiction clause). Hence Chris’ description of the “funnel” (standing) as an issue that may be worth discussing first.
Jeffrey Neuman
54:48
We need to have consensus on what the problems are before we try to solve any problems. Right now there is a consensus that agrees that forcing IGOs to waive immunity is a problem. I also believe we agree that the standing issue MAY be a problem IF individual panelists are put I a position of determining whether an IGO should or should not have standing.
Jeffrey Neuman
55:15
What are the other "problems" that we need to solve for?
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
57:20
@Jeff i fully agree on your definition of the 2 issues: Standing and sov. inmuniyt. No more and no less
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:00
I think John, as the Council Liaison, will inform the Council about what we are working towards and the Council can decide if it wants a PCR (Change Request) filed.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:30
But anything more than addressing standing and immunity I think would require a much more proactive approach with the Council
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
01:01:11
@Chris, maybe if we don’t call it TWEAK, but clarifications to the other Recommedations, at least I would understand it as a “friendly clarification"
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:13
@Susan - right. I don't think a Panelist should be given that responsibility
Mary Wong
01:07:37
@Jeff. @Susan, you may recall that the Curative Rights PDP’s original recommendation as regards 6ter was that it could provide standing; following public comments to its Initial Report, the Working Group modified its recommendation to what you see today, as an attempt to retain 6ter as an option but trying to accommodate the fact that it doesn’t confer substantive rights.
Terri Agnew
01:09:30
@Brian, we are unable to hear your at this time
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:09:35
sorry one second
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:09:37
will dial in
Terri Agnew
01:09:40
Let us know if a dial out on telephone is needed
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:53
we can see you though :)
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:10:11
apologies dialing
Berry Cobb
01:14:23
https://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/igos.html
Berry Cobb
01:15:48
https://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/guidelines.html
Mary Wong
01:23:22
The GAC list was based on whether an IGO was created by governments via treaty and has international legal personality.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:30:47
I think a Registrant needs a meaningful right to appeal.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:44
And I say that as a panelist. I am somewhat comforted by the fact that my decisions can be "appealed". None of us are infallible and we don't always get things right.
Terri Agnew
01:38:40
@Jay, your audio is cutting in and out
Terri Agnew
01:38:56
@Jay slightly better
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:46:13
Not starting from scratch, but making a few specific targeted modifications.
Berry Cobb
01:48:33
We usually have the transcript in 48 to 72 hours. This will also be a great source to capture today's conversation.
Mary Wong
01:48:36
Yes, definitely, Chris!
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:49:49
Nominet (appeals) will be one to look at.
Mary Wong
01:49:59
@Brian, noted.
Terri Agnew
01:50:04
The IGO Work Track Team meeting is scheduled on Monday, 15 March 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:50:08
Thanks for a productive call Chris
Osvaldo Novoa
01:50:40
Thank you and bye